Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Canada No Safe Haven for Birds or Bears

The venerable yellow cedars near here hold one of the world's great concentrations of nesting sites for the marbled murrelet, a secretive bird equally at home in the old-growth forest and on the sea.

The robin-sized murrelet is on the endangered-species lists in both Canada and the United States, primarily because logging is destroying its habitat.

South of the border, the giant trees where the bird makes its home in moss-covered branches high off the ground are strictly guarded. But in British Columbia they are often fair game to logging operations. Last spring, despite the efforts of environmental officials, crews cleared a mountaintop here that held several nesting sites.

The loggers did leave a 100-foot cedar that held a nest designated by scientists No. 17, and a younger tree alongside. The trees stand like sentinels now on an otherwise bare knob, and they are so exposed that researchers doubt the murrelets will return.

The failed attempt to save the cedars underscores the state of endangered-species protection in Canada. While the Government has assembled a list of 291 species of animals, birds, insects and plants that are endangered, it has not so far passed legislation that protects them.

''It's like a hospital that registers its patients but doesn't treat them,'' said Stewart A. G. Elgie, managing lawyer for the Sierra Legal Defense Fund in Toronto. ''We identify the species at risk, diagnose what's wrong, but then we don't treat them. It's absurd.''

Environmentalists say that Canada's lack of endangered-species legislation jeopardizes longstanding efforts in the United States to shield animals that cross the border. For instance, grizzly bears in the Western United States are protected, but they can be hunted if they cross into the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.

''I have had bears that range into Alberta and have been lost,'' said Michael J. Madel, who runs the Grizzly Bear Management Program for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The radio collar signals ''just disappear,'' he said. ''It's not a good sign.''

Environmental groups in Mexico and the United States filed a complaint in January with the environmental commission of the North American Free Trade Agreement charging Canada with failing to protect its endangered species.

And in February 1997, 130 American environmental organizations signed a letter asking Vice President Al Gore to encourage the Canadian Government to pass an endangered-species bill then being considered by the Canadian Parliament.

But when Prime Minister Jean Chretien called an election last spring, all pending legislation effectively died. To be considered again, the bill would have to be reintroduced in the new Parliament.

So far, with a new Environment Minister in place, the Government has moved slowly. Although officials at one point said legislation would be ready for consideration in June, they now say they have no idea when a new version of the endangered species act will be introduced.

Such hesitation can seem strange in a country with a reputation for environmental awareness. Opinion polls show that 94 percent of Canadians support laws to protect endangered wildlife. But the problem lies in a more traditional dispute over where power lies.

Canada's 10 provinces dig in their heels any time the Federal Government in Ottawa tries to exercise its power. All provinces have gained strength over the last 30 years as Ottawa has tried to soothe separatists in Quebec by keeping decision-making local.

Environmentalists saw last year's endangered-species legislation as weak and only minimally effective. They said it would have protected the habitat of endangered species only on federal lands, and would have applied only to those species that do not cross any borders. Still, the provinces strenuously objected to it and rejected any Federal attempt to control local land use -- for instance, protecting the areas where endangered species live.

Hovering like a black cloud over the debate are perceptions of the American experience over the 25 years since Washington passed the Endangered Species Act.

Jack Munro, chairman of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, a logging trade group, wrote, ''British Columbians only have to look across the border to see the kind of human devastation that can result from poorly reasoned actions considered necessary to protect endangered species.'' In newspaper columns opposing the Canadian proposal last year, Mr. Munro said the American legislation had produced only modest conservation benefits, while costing thousands of logging jobs to save species like the spotted owl.

Environmentalists say that one reason endangered-species legislation has not passed is that Canadians find it hard to believe that with so much open space, and so few people, species could be in trouble.

As David R. Boyd, head of the Sierra Legal Defense Fund in Vancouver, put it: ''The general perception among a majority of the population is just one of, 'How can there be environmental problems?' ''

A group of scientists on the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada put together and updates the list, which now includes 291 endangered or threatened species, with another 23 already extinct.

Without clear information on nesting, it has been hard to estimate the population of marbled murrelets. Biologists generally believe there are around 30,000 in British Columbia. But the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada found that if logging continued at the current rate, the marbled murrelet could be extinct in ''a matter of decades.''

Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba have their own endangered-species legislation, though environmentalists consider them inadequate. In British Columbia, officials rely on an overlapping network of laws, and the Forestry Practices Code that governs the logging industry, to protect species and habitat.

''The position of the B.C. government is that we will not have stand-alone endangered-species legislation,'' said James H. Walker, senior land use adviser to the British Columbia ministry of environment. ''But the other laws and acts, taken together, provide as much as or more protection than any single piece of legislation.''

Mr. Walker said British Columbia listed only 4 of more than 700 vertebrate species in the province as endangered and another 41, including the marbled murrelet, as at risk.

But environmentalists say the loss of habitat accounts for 80 percent of species decline. Thus conservation often becomes an economic issue, especially in resource-rich provinces like British Columbia, where logging is one of the most important industries. Experts say species protection cannot stand up to economic interests, as shown by what happened at Desolation Sound last spring.

''The province depends on revenues from lumber to balance its budget,'' said Fred Cooke, a biology professor at Simon Fraser University who studies bird population and wildlife ecology. One of his projects, a three-year effort at Desolation Sound, was interrupted last year by the logging.

The province's ministry of environment tried to protect the forest tracts near Desolation Sound because the 32 nests found in the area were a surprisingly rich research site. Until 1990 no murrelet nests had been found in Canada.

Despite the ministry's efforts, the ministry of forests had already granted logging permits and refused to revoke them.

Federal officials say they are aware of the potential weaknesses of provincial laws but reluctant to intrude on local turf.

Steven G. Curtis, associate director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service, a branch of the federal Ministry of the Environment, said, ''The principal concern was that in the draft piece of legislation, the federal Government had taken onto itself perhaps more authority than the provinces considered desirable or necessary to do a sufficient job.''

In particular, provinces objected to a section of the bill that would have allowed the federal Government to step in to protect wildlife habitat if provincial efforts were considered inadequate. That provision is expected to be taken out of a new version.

Mr. Boyd of the Sierra Legal Defense Fund and other environmentalists fear this version will be weakened to the point of uselessness. The Government disagrees.

''Some people will see it that way,'' Mr. Curtis, ''but no final decisions have been made, and the minister is considering various options for trying to address or accommodate concerns.''

Mr. Curtis added that the new bill was also likely to retain some provisions that environmentalists objected to, including one that lets the federal Cabinet -- not scientists -- designate endangered species.

''There's so much animosity in the United States over the listing of species,'' Mr. Curtis said. ''We're hoping to avoid some of that.''